A secret high-level Metropolitan police report has concluded that Muslim officers are more likely to become corrupt than white officers because of their cultural and family backgrounds. ...Intense loyalty to an extended kin network is not compatible with the functions of a state governmental structure (which is, very generally, the structure that Western nations use in one form or another for governance). Loyalty (and by extension, identification) needs to be directed toward the denizens under the agency's auspices. If it doesn't extend that far, favoritism (corruption) develops. If it extends beyond that, the state the agency is supposed to represent is neglected as an entity. The state weakens and begins to fall apart. Muslims, as Samuel Huntington has pointed out, more strongly identify at the family level (doesn't extend far enough) and also at the very broad pan-Islamic level (extends too far) than Westerners, who more strongly identify at the national level, do.
The document was written as an attempt to investigate why complaints of misconduct and corruption against Asian officers are 10 times higher than against their white colleagues.
The main conclusions of the study, commissioned by the Directorate of Professional Standards and written by an Asian detective chief inspector, stated: "Asian officers and in particular Pakistani Muslim officers are under greater pressure from the family, the extended family ... and their community against that of their white colleagues to engage in activity that might lead to misconduct or criminality."
The Met's officers need to evenhandedly serve the greater London area's population. But the idea of serving a certain geographical area is foreign to the Muslim world. It's clear in Iraq that the three major factions and the close-knit groups within these factions put little stake into Iraq as a nation. The Kurds are the closest to the Western model, but they want a new (nominally at least) state that is comprised of fellow ethnics (a quite extended family).
Europe needs to realize the difficulty this cultural difference between Muslim immigrants and the continent's natives poses to the effectiveness of its governments.
But I'm not confident it will. The report asserts that British Pakistanis believe "assisting your extended family is considered a duty," yet the Met's suggested counter-measure doesn't inspire confidence:
[The report] recommended that Asian officers needed special anti-corruption training and is now being considered by a working party of senior staff.Training on how not to be corrupt? Or ethics training with the goal of removing the desire for corruption? What profligacy. Ethics instruction will only work as far as the Pakistanis believe it to ethical. In effect, the Met will be telling Pakistanis that their culture is wrong and in need of fixing. If they don't buy into it, such training will only reveal more ways for officers to benefit their families through (Britain's definition of) corruption.
Multiculturalism is a mess:
The leaking of the report comes at a time when the Met needs the cooperation and trust of the Muslim community more than ever and as the force tries to contain the fallout from last week's anti-terrorist raid in Forest Gate in which a man was shot. The first version was considered so inflammatory when it was shown to representatives from the staff associations for black, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim officers, that it had to be toned down. There are 31,000 officers in the Met -It's tragic what Britain's done to herself.
7%, or 2,170, are black and minority ethnic; among these an estimated 300 are Muslim.
This is multiculturalism in action--the importation of principles anathema to the values of the Occident and an accompanying fear of mounting a legitimate defense of its values. There's no dispute that complaints and corruption charges lodged against Asian officers occur at ten times the rate of the force at large. Yet empirically-based reports cannot be issued for fear of offending those who necessitate the report in the first place!
Tolerance has to have limits. Standards have to be enforced. Western liberalism has to find a way to deal with this kind of stuff. If it doesn't, it will die.
In the US, we're told by Republican caciques and their sycophants at places like the WSJ that we can't be honest about Hispanic immigration because there are too many Hispanics already here that will turn against us if we do, that we cannot be opposed to 'freedom' in the Middle East (the freedom to put Hamas in power or throw out Mubarak and replace him with the Muslim brotherhood) because freedom is what we enjoy, that we cannot honestly attempt to understand human biodiversity because it restricts the access (as if the discovery and the cause are one in the same) of many to success in an economically-vibrant liberal democracy that every good person must strive for.
All these omertas are harmful. Stories like the once referenced are symptomatic of the pandemic of political correctness that has engulfed the Western world and is slowly killing it.